N Manimaran vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, N.Manimaran, filed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Thanjavur. The order levied tax on the construction of a residential building, which the petitioner claims is exempted. The petitioner was unable to file a statutory appeal against this order within the prescribed time due to the Covid-19 pandemic, citing staff shortages. Despite these difficulties, the petitioner attended the personal hearing before the first respondent. The revenue contended that failure to file the appeal within the stipulated time disentitles the petitioner from maintaining the writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be permitted to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority. Following the precedent set in M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, the Court directed that the petitioner be allowed to file the appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, subject to depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount. Upon compliance with this condition, the Appellate Authority (suo motu impleaded as the second respondent) was directed to entertain the appeal, admitting it without reference to the period of limitation. The Appellate Authority is to pass orders on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the tax levy itself, leaving that for the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority beyond the prescribed period of limitation, considering the circumstances arising from the Covid-19 pandemic? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of condonation of delay and the impact of the pandemic on procedural compliance). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the levy of tax on an exempted activity violates Article 265 of the Constitution of India. They further contended that the delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic and staff shortages, and they are willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for entertaining the appeal. They relied on the judgment in M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (W.P.(MD)No. 11924 of 2024) where a similar permission was granted. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that since the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time, they have no right to maintain the present Writ Petition.